Hi y'all. It looks like you are off to a fine start and, for the most part, staying on the topic. It wasn't my intention to hi-jack the previous thread. I was responding to Setenta's suggestion (6/1/03 @ 1.11 pm) that that thread might need to be replaced because it had turned into a "vile pit of vitupertation." Great phrase although I'm having trouble visualizing an image.
So where have the Dem candidates been lately? I reckon they are laying low while Mr Bush is in the mid-east.
When he gets back, the hastily approved tax-cut will probably be a target. Another issue that may come up is the administration's justification for going to war with Iraq: the presence (or now the seeming lack of presence) of WMD's.
Sen Warner (R-Va) and Sen Graham (D-Fl) run the committee that would look into this. Do y'all think that this is an issue Mr Graham will or should pursue, or is it ancient history?
jjorge*197982* wrote:Scrat wrote:Lieberman will get the nod...
Scrat
I'm interested in your thinking process on this, especially since you reach a very different conclusion than I do about Lieberman.
Will you elaborate on why you think Lieberman will win?
Can you say what primaries and caucuses you think he'll win?
And, seeing that it's voters who in the end, 'Give the nod', what subsets* of democratic primary voters do you think he'll appeal to?
*Craven's comment that his right-wing friends like Lieberman reveals nothing IMO about L's appeal to democrats except suggesting that a lot of democrats (like me) see him as almost a republican in democrat clothing!
Scrat
No comment on ANY of my questions?
Quote:vile pit of vitupertation."
He should know, considering he contributed to it being so.
jj - I did comment on your questions, though apparently not to your liking. I think Lieberman will get the nod because I think those who control the party will put any chance to win in 2004 over the potential for alienating the increasingly fragmented far-left fringe of the party. Lieberman will craft (is crafting) a platform only slightly left of Bush on the economy and defense, but will throw in some token environmental bones to try to keep the faithful faithful.
Could I be wrong? Sure. It's just an opinion.
and if the democrats want another republican i am sure they will go for Liberaman, after all a republican with a brain is better than one without.
Food for thought (for those on a diet):
Quote:"I appreciate Sen. Kerry saying we don't need Bush Lite, and we don't. But, Sen. Kerry, we don't want Dean Lite, either."--Howard Dean
Quote:"The one thing this country doesn't need is a second Republican Party."--John Kerry
Quote:"The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe."--Dennis Kucinich
Quote:"What we need in this party is not just people who talk about backbone, but people who have it."--Dean
Quote:"When I was in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1968, I learned what it was to work with an aircraft carrier for real."--Kerry
Quote:"This administration tells people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and then they take away our boots."--Kucinich
Quote:"I can personally say that I am the only person running for the presidency of the United States that knows what it's like to stand up without being able to go to the bathroom for five hours."--Dean
I don't know about you folks, but I feel so inspired, I need to sit down.
I am used to scrat. He's got a long history of this. And let me remind you, scrat,
adv 1: according to logical reasoning; "logically, you should now
do the same to him"
2: in a logical manner; "he acted logically under the
circumstances" [ant: {illogically}]
that what you infer is not necessarily what I imply. The fact that you are supersensitive suggests interesting reasons for your suppositions. If you will go back and carefully read my post, you will see that I am discussing the topic at hand, and briefly suggest an answer to setanta's question. Where are you mentioned?
It would be better for all concerned to get away from personalizing so many inferences, and get to the topic at hand.
Let's just assume it was my mistake and leave it at that. My bad. I'll assume in the future that nothing you write applies to me, and we should both be fine.
Good evening...There was an interesting editorial in the Wall Strret Journal this morning having to do with Presidential candidate John Kerry (D-MA). I tried one other time to provide a link to the WSJ; without success. Evidentally the unwashed masses are not welcome there. I may be wrong about that.
Anyway, the gist of the editorial had to do with the fact that Mr Kerry is married to a widow lady. Her late husband was a Heinz, of the ketchup company and she inherited a boatload of money (my phrase; not the WSJ's).
The WSJ said that courts have ruled that there is nothing wrong with me or you spending our own money as quixotically as we want in the political arena; that is protected by the 1st amendment.
But, again according to the WSJ editorial as I read it, Mr Kerry's wife may only contribute $2000 to her husband's campaign; because that is "her" money; not "his."
The WSJ contrasted that with Steve Forbes, who inherited his daddy's fortune and could, therefore, spend as much of it as he wanted.
I know where the WSJ is coming from on this, but it was kind of an interesting twist. -johnboy-
She is, indeed, the heiress to the Heinz fortune. That's a lot of ketchup. (That was what I was alluding to in my earlier jab about him marrying wealthy women.)
Anyhow, I am no expert on the laws of campaign funding, but I believe that an individual cannot make a contribution of more than $2000. I think corporate donations are $5000, but I could be mistaken and I'm unsure if this applies to all candidates or if it's different for mayors, governors, etc.
Now, if she croaked, he might be in a new position to spend as much of it as he wants.....if he can wrestle it away from his step-children.
Friday morning (6/13), NPR's Bob Edwards on "Morning Edition" will interview another of the nine Dems. Next up, Rev Al Sharpton.
I realize that there is an older and more frequently visited site with a similar topic name. It is rough and tumble and always entertaining.
My idea here is to explore the machinations involved in someone's undertaking the quest to be President of the United States. The Dems will choose their candidate in, I guess, July of 2004.
My humble suggestion in starting this was not to get in to who SHOULD win. Rather I was hoping for a beginning of a year-long dialogue of how the messages of the hopefuls were playing out in your parts of the country.
Thanks...johnboy
Yo, john:
Two threads on the topic are fine.
Everybody who comes to this forum knows my bias after 15 minutes, and most everyone knows I like to share like-biased opinions I find on the Web with all of you.
Here's another from the weblog
Big, Left, Outside, about John Kerry. The author worked on his campaigns in the '70s, and then covered him as a reporter for the Boston
Phoenix:
Quote:There's the John Kerry I like (the guy who, in the middle of the recent Gulf War II called for a "regime change in Washington") and then there's the overly cautious John Kerry which has been in control of the candidate for the rest of recent history. It might as well be said: The lesser Kerry can't beat Bush.
We also need a "regime change" in John Kerry's brain: he needs to be unhooked from the Borg. If he's left only to the Commercial Media's pressures, that will never happen.
To bring out the better Kerry, here's what I learned long ago: You have to get him mad. I used to be good at that, but I've been busy making others mad in recent years.
Here's the key: To wake Kerry up, you have to piss him off. You have to put his back up against the wall and slam into him with everything you've got to awaken his mutant powers.
And then the real John Kerry stands up.
He's golden in those moments: American politics' version of the Incredible Hulk. The American political highway is littered with the higher political aspirations of former giants (Jim Shannon, Ed Markey, Ray Shamie, Bill Weld, and a dozen or so others you probably haven't heard of) slain by Kerry when he was awake.
The Hulk can beat Bush.
Dr. Bruce Banner cannot.
We may know a great deal more about who's developing political strength out there thanks to MoveOn.org's straw poll, in development as we speak. I hope you all are aware of it and participating in it...
Oh yes indeed, tartarin. And what I keep saying is who has the courage to speak out? I believe that several of the candidates are good possibilities, but weak-kneed. So far, only Dean has said some things.
And I heard Biden was considering a run? I hope not.
Anyone thought about Barbara Lee lately?
Got some NJ grit in that eye, Mamaj?
Tartarin<
I'll confess my ignorance and ask you, who is Barbara Lee?
Joe Biden has approached -- and hedged on -- too many presidential races to be taken seriously.
Barbara Lee (you do remember WH) is the member of Congress who voted against the war? Smart, independent type.
Yes, Tartarin, I do remember, and thanks for the reminder.
